The policy requires students in selected extracurricular activities to have a consent form read, signed, and dated by their parent or custodial guardian, coach or sponsor, as well themselves. The form requires the student to agree to provide a urine sample in several different situations. First, the student must submit to and pass an initial drug screening in order to participate in the activity. They must also consent to a random screening, as well as a urine test upon reasonable suspicion by a school administrator, coach or sponsor. The suit does not object to students being tested upon reasonable suspicion, rather to them being tested initially and randomly.

The Policy was initiated in 1998 after two isolated incidents involving drugs at Tecumseh’s middle school. The action was taken after parents complained to the school board about the incidents, imploring the board to take some action to combat drug use among students. Yet at the time, there was no evidence that Tecumseh High School students who participate in extra-curricular activities had a sudden increase in drug and alcohol consumption.

Students who participate in athletics are also subject to the policy. However, the Supreme Court justified such practice based on the belief that athletics have a lower expectation of privacy with requirements such as communal undressing and bathing, as well as a higher risk of injury from possible substance abuse.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution reads that people have the right to “Be secure in their persons… against unreasonable searches and seizures…” Based on this protection, Earls and James feel that it is unreasonable to search them for drug use without any reason to suspect they have used drugs.

They also believe that the Drug Testing Policy violates their rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, which states,”nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Earls and James may not participate in extra-curricular activities where testing is required until they submit to the testing. Not only are these students being denied of enriching themselves through participation in activities, the policy also indirectly harms their ability to attend competitive universities. Even students with excellent grades are routinely denied admission to competitive universities if they do not have a wide variety of extracurricular activities to show they are well-rounded students.

The Supreme Court recently declined to review an Indiana high school’s policy drug testing for extra-curricular activities. The ACLU stated that this case is more significant because the drug-testing policy goes beyond extra-curricular activities by indirectly affecting the courses of a student. Lindsay Earles was forced to take a drug test when she enrolled in the music class because the class requires participation in the choir, which is an extra-curricular activity.

The lawsuit said, “For instance, a student can take the choir class only if she also participates in the extracurricular choir activities. Thus the drug testing policy effectively applies to parts of a public school’s core legally required function — the education of its students.”

The district suspended enforcement of the drug policy after learning of the lawsuit but the final outcome will play out in court. While they wait, Earles and James could apply a Libertarian solution by “privatizing” the activities that require drug testing. If Earles would like to sing in the choir, she could start her own and encourage other students to resign from the government’s choir.

More Stories

• Suspension without written notification reversed
• Website creator wins in Federal Court
• Boring little town
• Students violate intrusive alcohol policy
• Politicians ban typical teenage hang-outs

WASHINGTON, DC — A new study has discovered that teenagers who watch anti-drug TV commercials become more “curious” about illegal drugs. So why, the Libertarian Party asked today, are taxpayers being forced to pay for those ads?

“According to this study, the government is spending $195 million a year of our money to tantalize teenagers about illegal drugs,” said Steve Dasbach, the party’s national director. “Shouldn’t Americans have a choice about whether we want to fund what is essentially a ‘Just Do It’ advertising campaign for drugs?”

In a study released earlier this year, two researchers found that teenagers who viewed anti-drug Public Service Announcements (PSAs) “were more curious about using illicit drugs” than participants who didn’t see the PSAs.

According to the authors of the study, assistant professor S. Shyam Sundar at Penn State University and doctoral student Carson Wagner at the University of Colorado (Boulder), students exposed to anti-drug PSAs desired more “experimental knowledge” about drugs, not just “knowledge about drug-related facts.”

And the study found the “mere mention” of illegal drugs in PSAs created an “everybody’s doing it” effect in teenagers — and caused them to “increase estimations” of the prevalence of drug use among their peers.

These findings come at a crucial time, since the federal government has sharply increased the amount of money it spends on anti-drug commercials. Currently, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy and the Partnership for a Drug-Free America spend about $195 million of taxpayers’ money to broadcast anti-drug PSAs.

Wouldn’t it be tragic then, asked Dasbach, if that $195 million is making America’s drug problem worse?

“According to this study, the government is effectively acting as a tax-funded advertising agency for drug pushers,” he said. “And, unfortunately, there’s nothing you can do about it. If a private anti-drug organization was running these ads, you could threaten to withhold your contributions. With the government, you don’t have that option — even if politicians use your money to glamorize drugs to teenagers.”

But if government anti-drug television ads don’t work, what does?

Parents, said Dasbach. According to another recent study, children who are warned about the potential dangers of drugs by their parents are 36% less likely to use marijuana than children whose parents don’t discuss the issue, and 56% less likely to use cocaine.

“One concerned parent is more effective than $195 million in government-funded advertising,” noted Dasbach. “Given that information, what is the real solution to the problem of drugs — the government or parents?”

Interestingly, even the government has figured out the answer to that question, he said. A new government-funded newspaper advertisement states: “The most effective deterrent to drug use among kids isn’t the police, or prison, or politicians. [It] is their parents.”

That’s an astonishing revelation from the government, said Dasbach.

“Let’s see: The government admits police and prison are not an effective deterrent. Does that mean politicians will promise to stop arresting 700,000 people a year for marijuana crimes? And the government admits politicians are not an effective deterrent. Does that mean we’ll get back the $195 million they wasted on anti-drug advertisements?” he asked.

If not, it proves one thing, said Dasbach: “Not even the government pays attention to its anti-drug ads. So why should we expect teenagers to do so?”

More Stories

• 150 Americans Attend Curfew Protest
• The Circuit Courts
• Judge rules Palmdale, CA, curfew law unconstitutional
• Curfew Protest Returns to La Jolla
• Suspensions: How Your High School May Be Violating Your Rights By Sergio Bichao

The government’s restriction on underage alcohol consumption has made it clear to teenagers that drinking underage is morally and lawfully wrong. Alcohol can stunt our mental and physical growth and it alters our judgment: it is bad for us. Well, so are Fruit Loops but that hasn’t prevented them from becoming a staple in a 7-year-old’s diet.

If a seventeen year old wants alcohol we either get a fake ID, ask someone over 21 to buy it for us, raid our parents liquor cabinet, or go to a foreign restaurant where the waiters don’t even know what “identification” means. We are forced to be sneaky, and because of this, we have to clue as to what in the hell we are doing. We have a bottle of Vodka. We drink it.

“What does 80 proof mean?”

“I dunno. That’s a B- though. Better drink more of it, maybe it’s not very strong.”

We get drunk off our asses. We vomit. We take advantage of the time we have to rebel against the authority that tells us its wrong. We drive. We crash. We kill people. We get raped. We drink too much because we were never taught how to drink responsibly.

My friends were not stupid: they were uninformed. Plain and simply, the government should not impose a law making it illegal for people under 21 years of age to consume alcohol. If alcohol was introduced as simply a part of culture, something to be enjoyed but not abused, there would not nearly be as many problems resulting from its consumption. The United States’ motor vehicle fatality rate is 45.8 percent higher than Germany’s even though Germany has no speed limits, and 70% of their drivers drink and drive.

Why? Because Americans are given mixed messages about alcohol. We are told it will make us popular, beautiful, and accepted. We are also told it is illegal, unhealthy and made for adults over 21. This just makes it more appealing.

I say children should be brought up drinking wine at dinnertime, having fun with mixed drinks when their friends come over, perhaps an occasional beer at a sports event. Alcohol is not bad for you; it is the government’s restriction that causes bad things to happen. If underage drinking were allowed, there would be no more sneaky alcohol runs and unsupervised parties. These encourage drinking and driving because teenagers cannot tell their parents, “Hey mom, I’m drunk. Please pick me up at 2:30 am.”

If the government made it legal for people under 21 to drink, alcohol might be more prevalent, but certainly not as highly sought after.

More Stories

• Casa: the humiliation, the inhumanity
• Paul, a fifth grader, fights censorship
• Gov’t schools morph into vaccine needles
• Fenced In
• Genoa Carver in Golden, Colorado

The case before the 2nd District Court involved St. Petersburg High School employees who suspended two students for being under the influence of marijuana while on campus. However, at the time of the suspension, the students die not possess any drugs.

The ruling forced schools in the area to revise their policies, which automatically inflict a suspension upon any student who is on campus and simply under the influence of drugs. Many of the policies state that students “shall not…be under the influence of a controlled substance or an alcoholic beverage while on school property …” In the future, schools may demand a drug test to prove drug use. This search would probably be constitutional since the appearance of drug use could constitute “reasonable suspicion.”

According to a local police officer, drug tests are often unnecessary because many students mistakenly admit that they’ve been using drugs or alcohol. Therefore, you must tell your principal that you are sober even if you are drunk or stoned and on school grounds. Do not admit that you are under the influence because a confession will give them the evidence they need to suspend you.

Drug prohibition is an attack on your individual right to live life as you see fit. Lying about drug use to government employees is like lying to burglars who are looking for your money.

More Stories

• Guns save lives
• We’re still looking for the easy answers
• Another student newspaper fights back
• Rockstars in San Diego, California
• Supreme Court limits school drug tests

Ironically, the students were busted on a day that their school had deemed “It’s No Sweat to Be Drug-Free Day.” We are accustomed to stories about police harassment but the government is now using its schools to control your personal life. You can now be punished for activities that you committed off school grounds. That’s as if K-Mart arrested you for shoplifting at another store.

We can’t wait for Libertarian politicians to shut down the government’s schools, thereby promoting private and home-school education, which flourished before the government put them out of business.

More Stories

• Michigan lets 14-year-olds drive
• “Inducing Panic” may lead to jail time
• 1997 San Diego Curfew Protests: July 12 Protest
• Website creator wins in Federal Court
• I should be allowed to smoke marijuana

According to Col. Scott Minier of the Marion County Sheriff’s Department, “Our top brass at least is telling me it’s not a statute they make use of.” Beverly Phillips, Marion County Prosecutor Scott Newman’s spokeswoman, added that, “It’s up to each individual law enforcement officer whether they want to cite a teen for that,” she said.

A crime occurs when one person is harming the property or body of another person. When a police officer sees a bank robbery or a rape in progress, he tries to stop the act because he instinctually realizes that a crime is taking place. The officer do not first try to figure out if a politician has outlawed rape or robbery before taking action.

An officer’s instinct, rather than a law, also guides his actions when he witnesses teen smoking. Unlike a rape, which usually involves at least two people, a victim and an assailant, teenage smoking only involves one person. If the officer were to arrest the teenager, the officer would be arresting both the victim and the assailant, which is like arresting the rapist and his victim.

Therefore, many officers ignore teen smoking because they instinctually realize that teen smoking laws are not stopping a crime. The laws simply make it legal for one group to control the victimless actions of another group.

Libertarians fundamentally believe that the only moral purpose of the law is protect you and your property from OTHER PEOPLE. Libertarians will repeal all smoking laws, drinking laws and narcotics laws. You will have the right to treat your body and your property as you see fit.

More Stories

• Pittsburgh student paper fights alcohol censorship
• Boring little town
• How judges think
• Personal Story: James
• Youth rights org wins $25,000

Punishment for drinking alcohol is common at government schools but this policy seeks to control the behavior of students when they are not at school. Now that the intolerant government administrators have crossed into the private lives of local students, they will eventually write policies that forbid students from skate boarding, riding a bicycle without a helmet, or even having sex.

The alcohol policy is also an example of double-punishment, or double-jeopardy, which is illegal. In Arlington, a student could get issued a ticket on a Thursday night, and then endure more punishment when he arrives at school on Friday. Basically, the government cannot prosecute a citizen twice for the same crime. Hopefully, a student will sue the school district over this issue.

At the very least, students in Arlington should actively protest the school’s attempt to control their private lives. And if you don’t live in Arlington, be ready to protest if your intolerant government school administrators tell you how to live your life.

More Stories

• “Free Range Kids”
• Boring little town
• Student’s lawsuit nullifies open container law
• Website creator wins in Federal Court
• See It, To Believe It

According to police reports, Guadalupe Valerio, 43, who owns the house, and one other adult were serving the beer to more than 400 people who were under the age of 18. Valerio was arrested on a charge of making beer available to minors, and was jailed in lieu of $3,000 bail. The charge is a class B misdemeanor and can carry a fine of up to $2,000 and 180 days in jail.

Next time, you throw a party, make sure your parents are not in the home. The police may still make arrests but at least your parents won’t potentially face expensive fines.

But never think that the government should be busting up parties or stopping people drinking beer. Valerio’s son mistakenly validated the police’s efforts by saying, “They had to do what they had to do because lives could have been lost.”

In a Libertarian society, police would only break up your party if one guest is threatening another guest. Otherwise, they would not even be in the area because your home would probably be part of a gated community that has its own police. You would only have to obey your community’s rules. And if you didn’t like the community’s rules, you and your parents could move.

More Stories

• Daylight Savings Sparks Bar Brawl
• Alcohol Ban at Tailgate Parties Sparks Protests
• Student sues to wear Jewish Star
• Boston ends mandatory busing
• Curfew Protest Returns to La Jolla

Classmates believed that the officer was a 19-year-old former dropout, who was getting his last two credits in small engines and food preparation to complete his high school diploma. The officer maintained the identity for two months, as he hung out with his new friends at the mall, looked for summer jobs with them and even started a water fight at school.

More Stories

• Website creator wins in Federal Court
• You may skip the Pledge of Allegiance
• Schools lock toilets to stop smoking
• News with a view: The sex patrol is monitoring the halls
• Find your local curfew law

If only politicians in the United States were as intelligent as their counterparts in the North. Vote for Libertarian politicians who will repeal all smoking laws.

More Stories

• Student wins lawsuit, can publish lewd statements
• Students use local TV news to overturn jelly bracelet ban
• Ben Williams’ Home School Diary
• Genoa Carver in Golden, Colorado
• Gun possession in Kentucky schools considered “use”